View through a VIOOH

[Jonathan R]

Can anyone show me what you see when you look through a VIOOH accessory finder?

I'm also interested to know whether the focal length scale can be finessed to give exact framing, or is it click-stop? And whether the distance scale affects framing as well as parallax?

Thanks in anticipation for your help.

 

[Malcolm M]

Maybe I'll try and photograph through my VIOOH....

What you see is a rectangle, getting smaller and smaller with increasing set focal length. By 135mm it's postage stamp at arm's length. The dial is click-stopped at the marked focal lengths (35, 50, 85, 90, 135mm). The distance scale just tilts the finder. It doesn't affect the framing. It's best to leave it at infinity, and aim 2 inches above the subject- it's too easy to forget to reset it to infinity after a close-up.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

As Malcolm said, the framing size does not change with distance. Unlike the framelines in Leica's M cameras, which are a little smaller than the actual area you get on the film, the VIOOH frames are accurate at infinity. Since they don't get smaller at closer distances, I find that at most distances I need to frame a little loosely. The M-series cameras framelines do not change size either, but their frames are smaller than the full image area at infinity so that at close distances you don't have your images accidentally cropped.

The parallax correction is very accurate if you set the right distance, but as I already mentioned, frame loosely to get the full image you want on the film.

The focal length selector is click stopped but you can set it at intermediate settings if you want, but you have to be careful not to bump the ring if set between stops.
The VIOOH is a good 35mm and 50mm finder. I find it nearly useless for 90 and 135mm lenses because the image is so tiny at those focal lengths. If you don't have one yet, be sure to check for haze; almost all of them are badly fogged inside and taking them apart to clean is not easy (microscopic screws!). DAG and other repairmen can clean them.

 

[Dralowid]

Worth emphasising that the magnification, or lack of it, of the image does not change as you change the focal length. As Malcom says the image is simply masked smaller and smaller to match the focal length.

There are better finders...and an awful lot of old threads about them!

 

[Jonathan R]

OK, thanks to all, you have answered most of my questions. I am still slightly fascinated by the idea of optionally seeing my subject isolated by the frame, rather than just having it delineated by bright lines. I guess I'll just have to try one in a specialist shop next time I'm in London.

 

[Coldkennels]

Here you go, I knocked this up quickly at my desk just now. Hopefully it gives you some idea of what to expect.



Personally, I don't mind it at 35mm (although the rounded corners are a little odd). By 50mm the viewfinder is basically the same size as the one in the pre-IIIg Barnacks, so I don't see much point to using it. For anything longer than that, there's considerably better options. You can set intermediate focal lengths quite easily, however. There's also an extra index mark to set a close-focus version of each focal length if you want more framing accuracy, although I rarely bother.

Also, it's not that hard to get open and clean if you have the right screwdrivers. Mine was very hazy and is now pretty good (despite what the iPhone photo at 135mm suggests!) after a ten minute stripdown and clean. I don't think the glass is coated at all, however - it flares quite easily. Just bear in mind that the eyecup is completely metal and will ruin your glasses if you wear them; I ended up gluing an O-ring to the back of mine.

 

[Jonathan R]

Thanks so much! That's exactly what I needed to see. The 50mm view looks very much as I'd hoped. I'm not so impressed by the effect at 35mm - the rounded corners are really distracting. If it's the same mask presented at different scales, how does it acquire rounded corners at the 35mm setting?

I had heard about the effect of this gadget on spectacles. Is it necessary to get your eye/glasses really close into the eyecup to see the full frame at 35mm or 50mm?

 

[Coldkennels]

I'm not so impressed by the effect at 35mm - the rounded corners are really distracting. If it's the same mask presented at different scales, how does it acquire rounded corners at the 35mm setting?

Basically, at 35mm the viewfinder mask has moved far out enough that the round aperture/opening at the front of the finder creates those round corners. It's kinda like the hard vignetting you get from using a lens hood that's too small.

Once you start moving the four blades of the viewfinder mask in to crop down to 50mm, the field of view is small enough that the circular front of the finder is no longer visible.

This is pretty common on multi-finders; the earlier VIDOM does exactly the same, and from what I remember, the Braun multi-finder is similar (I sold mine about a decade ago so I can't check). The Zeiss and Soviet turret finders operate a bit differently as they're not cropping finders, though; as each focal length has a different front optic, you get a fully circular view with black frame lines (and, weirdly, a cross-hair) placed in front of it.

In theory the turret finder is a better option, giving you the same size view as the focal lengths change, but my Soviet one is wildly inaccurate; playing around with it and the adjustable framelines on X-Pro 2, 35mm on the turret is about equal to an APS-C 20mm (30.5mm on 35mm film) and the 28mm viewfinder is closer to 15mm on APS-C (~23mm on 35mm film). I don't know if the original Zeiss version is better, but the VIOOH is bang-on, at least.

I had heard about the effect of this gadget on spectacles. Is it necessary to get your eye/glasses really close into the eyecup to see the full frame at 35mm or 50mm?

At 50mm, you can have a bit of separation and still see the full frame. I have to smash my glasses into the back of the VIOOH to see everything at 35mm, though - hence the O-ring.

 

[Jonathan R]

Thanks again, really helpful insights!

 

[qqphotos]

In theory the turret finder is a better option, giving you the same size view as the focal lengths change, but my Soviet one is wildly inaccurate; playing around with it and the adjustable framelines on X-Pro 2, 35mm on the turret is about equal to an APS-C 20mm (30.5mm on 35mm film) and the 28mm viewfinder is closer to 15mm on APS-C (~23mm on 35mm film). I don't know if the original Zeiss version is better, but the VIOOH is bang-on, at least.

I would dearly love it if the KMZ turret finders worked but as you said, what it shows bears almost no relation to what the camera is aimed at, at least on my IIIg. I'm sure part of it is just that it's positioned differently relative to the lens vs on a Fed or whatever it was intended for, but probably the lack of quality control and adjustability plays a part too. I'd be surprised if the film captured any part of what the 135mm KMZ turret frame showed!

 

[shawn]

OK, thanks to all, you have answered most of my questions. I am still slightly fascinated by the idea of optionally seeing my subject isolated by the frame, rather than just having it delineated by bright lines. I guess I'll just have to try one in a specialist shop next time I'm in London.

If you like the idea of isolation and want to take that a step even further (and potentially break your brain) check out a VIDOM. Has the 35-135mm range as VIOOH finder (but no click stops) but the image in inverted horizontally and if you want to make the image upside down too.

Shawn

 

[Jonathan R]

If you like the idea of isolation and want to take that a step even further (and potentially break your brain) check out a VIDOM. Has the 35-135mm range as VIOOH finder (but no click stops) but the image in inverted horizontally and if you want to make the image upside down too.

Shawn

I don't think I want to go that far! I know it is said that it helps achieve robust composition, but I could never get on with a TLR.

 

[Coldkennels]

I don't think I want to go that far! I know it is said that it helps achieve robust composition, but I could never get on with a TLR.

I quite like TLRs but the VIDOM is too much. I got a VIDOM and a VIOOH at the same time and I've never used the VIDOM to actually take a photograph once. It genuinely makes me nauseous to look through.

I would dearly love it if the KMZ turret finders worked but as you said, what it shows bears almost no relation to what the camera is aimed at, at least on my IIIg. I'm sure part of it is just that it's positioned differently relative to the lens vs on a Fed or whatever it was intended for, but probably the lack of quality control and adjustability plays a part too. I'd be surprised if the film captured any part of what the 135mm KMZ turret frame showed!

To be fair, this is a common problem with all accessory viewfinders, not just the Soviet ones. Compare a Leica II's accessory shoe position compared to a Contax II, a Fed 5, an M3, a Bessa R... the accessory shoes are in wildly different places, and if you design a viewfinder for a Leica II, it won't be perfectly accurate on a Fed 5... or even on the slightly taller IIIg. It's less of an issue with the wide-angle stuff, but as lenses get longer, it's really noticeable. But back when I was using the FED 2 regularly, the KMZ turret was great, even with the 135mm Jupiter 11. I never use it with a Barnack, though.

But the whole 35mm/28mm focal length differences, though? There's no excuses for that!

 

[Richard G]

Interesting the disdain for the rounded corners at 35mm. That was my first and last impression of the 50mm frame lines in the M3 viewfinder. Put the camera down and that was that.

 

[Coldkennels]

Personally, I'd rather have the rounded corners of the M3 framelines over the no corners of the later M's framelines, but I see what you mean.

Leitz only really "got it right" with the IIIg, as far as I'm concerned. That viewfinder is wonderful.

 

[Dralowid]

I have never found any of the 'universal' viewfinders that I have tried satisfactory. On the other hand there are all sorts of single focal length finders available that do a good job. Less bulky too.

 

[Richard G]

In order of usefulness I would rank my singles, 50 SBOOI always on, 21 ZM, 135 SHOOC and 90 SGVOO. ZM 28/25 not used at al as those lenses mostly on digital. The 35 SBLOO too big and unbalance the rig and I can do without it even with film.

 

[Jonathan R]

Leitz only really "got it right" with the IIIg, as far as I'm concerned. That viewfinder is wonderful.

Interesting to hear that. What marks it out, and is it different from the IIIf viewfinder?

 

[Coldkennels]

Interesting to hear that. What marks it out, and is it different from the IIIf viewfinder?

The IIIg is a totally different beast to the other screwmount Leicas. The viewfinder is much bigger and has a beautiful full 50mm frameline - with corners, unlike the later Ms! - and 90mm "nubs" inside. The best bit is the framelines are parallax corrected, too.



It's a bit of a trade-off as the larger viewfinder means a slightly taller camera and incompatibility with some of the earlier Barnack accessories like the NOOKY and SOOKY close-up adapters. The IIIg equivalent, the ADVOO, is a screw-on diopter with an attachment that hangs over the front of the camera from the accessory shoe - a much less functional arrangement than the extension tube with rangefinder cam and built-in viewfinder mask/rangefinder diopter combo of the NOOKY and SOOKY:


Leica IIIg by Leicapasion, on Flickr

I've used the SOOKY a lot over the years - it's surprisingly useful. I've never wanted to pick up an ADVOO, though.

 

[Jonathan R]

Thanks, that's really helpful again. I frequently need to be reminded why I bought an M6 in the first place, but part of me has always hankered after a screw-mount Leica. It sounds as though I would be very frustrated by viewfinder issues with a IIIf or earlier - especially now that I have to wear glasses.